MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3122237167 · doi:10.52753/bis.2019.v20.34493

Acumuladores: uma revisão integrativa do potencial risco de disseminação de doenças transmitidas por vetores e outros animais nocivos à saúdeI.

2020· article· pt· W3122237167 on OpenAlexaff
Lúcia de Fátima Henriques, Marli Mendes da Costa, Cristina Sabbo, Ana Aparecida Sanches Bersusa

Bibliographic record

VenueBIS Boletim do Instituto de Saúde · 2020
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicZoonotic diseases and public health
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesBiologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acumuladores são pessoas reconhecidas por reunir excessiva-mente objetos ou animais domésticos de forma desordenada e de-sorganizada. Geralmente vivem em locais com déficit de higiene, de autocuidado do corpo e do ambiente habitacional interferindo na sua qualidade de vida, de sua família e da comunidade onde vive. Na comunidade há potencial de risco para ocorrência de algu-mas endemias transmitidas por vetores, hospedeiros, incômodos e peçonhentos. O objetivo do estudo foi realizar uma revisão de evidências na literatura sobre acumuladores de materiais/objetos (síndrome de Diógenes) e de animais domésticos (síndrome de Noé) e seu impacto para a saúde com foco nas endemias. Uma pergunta estruturada orientou o método, com levantamento de termos em três idiomas, nas bases de dados de PubMed, Em-base, Cochrane, Web of Science, Portal Regional da BVS, Google Acadêmico, além de literatura cinzenta. Dezesseis documentos compuseram a análise, apontando a necessidade de um cuidado multiprofissional para o tratamento desses pacientes. Com essa revisão esperamos contribuir com o melhor entendimento dos pro-blemas dos acumuladores no que tange ao controle necessário para evitar endemias nos diversos níveis de atenção à saúde, com perspectiva a traçar um fluxo efetivo de atenção multiprofissional.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBIS Boletim do Instituto de Saúde→Same topicZoonotic diseases and public health→French-language works237,207→